ForumsWEPRIs it OK to teach evolution in public schools?

367 40574
shortstopkid123
offline
shortstopkid123
20 posts
285

Many parents argue about schools teaching evolution. Creationalists do not support or believe in the theory of evolution. It goes against their beliefs. They do not believe it should be taught because it apposes many peoples' beliefs. Do you think that it should be taught?

Notes:
Lets try not point out certain religions. I am saying creationalists for a reason.

  • 367 Replies
sensanaty
offline
sensanaty
1,100 posts
350

Void and pHacon remind me of college. Every person there calling me a moron. Guess there's a strange correlation there.

Theories being whatever theories are or are not, what I wanted to say in my original post is that we cannot know 100% surely whether we are right or wrong (in most/some cases, before you guys decide to pick on my words again), but at least we attempt to understand the things we talk about, unlike religion (or Creationism in this case) which just says "It just happened".

inb4 you guys find something else wrong with my post

partydevil
online
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,560

Scientific theories and normal theories are not even slightly related.

i science we talk about theories and hypothesis right?
where a scientific theory has evidence for iets claims. a hypothesis has not and is a "normal theory"
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,902 posts
21,110

Objection rejected, MattEmAngel.

As mentioned by Kasic already, you can say a house probably burned down if you only see the charred remains. And it seems inconsiderate to me to assume that the Big Bang (not an explosion by the way), being the start of our current universe and thus the most crucial event, left no trace at all.

Also spontaneous generation has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Organic life from inorganic material is not "Something from Nothing" but (and it seems quite obvious to me) "Something from Something". And here again, there are enough traces left (pretty much all of life, plus geological evidence for the conditions at the time) to make plausible models for how it occured.

As such science, and by that including evolution too (leading back on topic) is often sort of detective work, looking at facts and traces, and reconstructng the events. It is not just wild random guesses, it's founded opinions and theories. As such it should definitely be told at school, and definitely differently than any religion.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

"Science" is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Science is based on creating theories after observing and experimenting. No one has ever seen the creation of the universe and it has never been recorded, documented or recreated in an experiment. If it cannot be observed and proved, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC.


Yes it is based on observation and experimentation. And the Big Bang as a theory does indeed fit with our observations and experimentation of the universe. As such IT'S SCIENCE.
Evidence for the Big Bang

There was no source of heat or density because nothing existed.


No that's not what I states, it's believe to have started from a singularity. A nearly infinite hot, dense state.

On top of that, why is the theory called "The Big Bang?" Sound does not travel in the vacuum of space.


The name was coined by Fred Hoyle trying to mock and discredit the theory. Fred was a proponent of the Stead State model of the universe. The name "Big Bang" stuck.

That is far from the truth. I have a theory that 9 in 10 Americans are heavily obese, sleep with their weapons tight against their body and strongly support Romney. Now, this is a theory, and as we all know is far from truth. It applies the same in science.


No one person can make a theory. What you would have here is a hypothesis.

Hypothesis; A prediction based on an observation. This proposes a rational explanation for the observed phenomenon, but has not yet been verified.

Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers.
ihsahn
offline
ihsahn
428 posts
245

Well that's like a school telling you that you must be "Liberal" or "Conservative". It is basically going against the freedom of religion. (Note: LIberal and Conservative aren't religions, I'm just giving an example) I mean the parents don't want their kids to believe something that the kid doesn't believe.

Except it isn't like that at all, because evolution isn't something you "believe" in. It's not a viewpoint or a controversy. It's science, plain and simple, and everyone who's on the "other side" of it would do well to come to their senses and stop being wrong.
It's not going against the freedom of religion because you don't have the right to your own facts or your own science.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

It is basically going against the freedom of religion.


Religion has nothing to do with facts or science, sorry. Nor is any religion being oppressed by evolution being taught.

I mean the parents don't want their kids to believe something that the kid doesn't believe.


You don't get to choose what is an is not "real" in the world, unlike with religion. Unless you can show proof that evolution is not real (you'd probably win the Nobel Prize) you have no reason to protest it being taught in school.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,411 posts
2,730

I'm just saying that it hasn't been fully proved


As others have stated earlier,
"A theory in science is the closest to proof you can get short of mathematical fact."
Theories don't grow up to be facts. Gravity, cell theory, germ theory, relativity, etc are "still just theories".

If they taught about both evolution and creation then let the kid pick what they believe

Which version(s) of creation? Judeo-Christian? Norse? Greek? Native American? Egyptian? They're all equally groundless.

Well the parents don't want their kids to believe Evolution, since it goes against what their religion says.

If their religion were true, what would they have to fear? Would it not brightly shine through?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Well the parents don't want their kids to believe Evolution, since it goes against what their religion says.


That's nice. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that evolution -is- fact and that all the kids, including those whose parent's don't want them to learn evolution, are there for knowledge.

Also Evolution is a scientific theory.


Yes it is. So is gravity.

And didn't they say something about those "Missing Links"


The term missing link is a misnomer, a very misleading one. It assumes that there are a, definite points of change during speciation (there aren't) b, that all transitional forms of all animals will have left fossils, and c, that we have found every fossil that exists.

Tl:dr, missing links are things Creationists who don't understand evolution love to talk about that only makes them look silly.

I'm just saying that it hasn't been fully proved,


Yes, it has. That's why over 99.99% of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact. I'm NOT exaggerating when I say over 99.99%. It literally is that much. Only the die-hard creationists in the science world who assume that the literal interpretation of the bible is right, and thus evolution wrong, say otherwise.

Yes but the scientific lesson goes against what the religion says so technically it is being oppressed.


That's bull. Religion isn't being oppressed because factual information is being taught. That's like arguing that a lie is truth and that you're being malicious by pointing out the lie.

If they taught about both evolution and creation then let the kid pick what they believe it would be fair though.


Evolution and Creationism ARE NOT EQUAL in views. Creationism is not science. It has no proof. It has many different forms. It does not belong in science class.
Squidbears
offline
Squidbears
635 posts
415

Yes, it has. That's why over 99.99% of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact. I'm NOT exaggerating when I say over 99.99%. It literally is that much. Only the die-hard creationists in the science world who assume that the literal interpretation of the bible is right, and thus evolution wrong, say otherwise.

Thought I'd provide a source to this claim
[url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#section_1]
I'd also just like to say that the notion of evolution not being taught in schools is completely ridiculous.
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,725 posts
3,620

Yes but the scientific lesson goes against what the religion says so technically it is being oppressed.

Are you really talking about religion, science and oppression in the same sentence in that context? Oh boy. I can almost taste the irony.

I'm just saying that it hasn't been fully proved,

Read a good majority of the previous page. That ought to make things clear. If not, then the case is hopeless.

If they taught about both evolution and creation then let the kid pick what they believe it would be fair though.

So should we allow kids and parents to decide that 'science' which adheres strictly to the beliefs of Pastafarianism is a valid choice? So it would be fine to teach young, impressionable minds that The Flying Spaghetti Monster holds everything down to earth with its infinite strands of pasta?
No, yeah. You're right. That sounds totally legit. Nothing wrong with that.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Link Fix

You forgot the [/url] and the words between the ] [ brackets.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Well that's like a school telling you that you must be "Liberal" or "Conservative". It is basically going against the freedom of religion. (Note: LIberal and Conservative aren't religions, I'm just giving an example) I mean the parents don't want their kids to believe something that the kid doesn't believe.


If a belief is threatened by facts I have to wonder just how worth while that belief is.

Also Evolution is a scientific theory.


For the umpteenth time theory doesn't mean wild guess. It has been verified many times by different people independent of each other.

Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers.

Is there a reason why this explanation and definition is being constantly and blatantly ignored?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Is there a reason why this explanation and definition is being constantly and blatantly ignored?


I think it's the same reason as to why Creationists cite missing links, lack of evidence, spontaneous generation, the Big Bang theory, animals changing species in one generation and more as evidence against evolution. They have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of scientific processes, don't attempt to look at the facts, and have been fed false information about the topic by those who believe similar things as they do. It's one large grouping of the ignorant and biased reaffirming each other's flawed stance and then plugging their ears and shouting when someone argues with them.
Getoffmydangle
offline
Getoffmydangle
152 posts
2,995

Well the parents don't want their kids to believe Evolution, since it goes against what their religion says. Also Evolution is a scientific theory. And didn't they say something about those "Missing Links"


2 things: some people clearly shouldn't be having kids, and its time to stop listening to "they"
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

And didn't they say something about those "Missing Links"


To that I ask you what "Missing Links"?

"A decade ago, Kathleen Hunt, a zoologist with the University of Washington, produced a list of a few hundred of the more dramatic transitional species known so far, all of which definitely fit every criteria required of the most restrictive definition. Myriad transitional species have been, and still are being, discovered; so many in fact that lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list âinnumerableâ especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own.

âBy the way, the missing link? Itâs still missing!â

No it isnât. Hasnât been for a long time now. There was a missing link in 1859 when there were only two species of humans yet known in the fossil record, and no intermediate fossils to link them with any of the other apes we knew of at that time. Since then, weâve found the fossils of thousands of individuals of dozens of hominid species, many of which provide a definite link to the other apes. But there were two particular pieces predicted to complete the puzzle:

First, it was never supposed that we evolved from any ape species still alive today. Instead the theory held that chimpanzees and humans were sibling species, daughters of the same mother. So the first link we needed to find was an ancient ape apparently basal to either of us â"to prove there was a potential progenitor of both groups. We had already found that link in Europe five years before Darwin went public. So we already had an evident âchainâ of transitional species from which only one more âlinkâ was needed.

The theory then required that another extinct hominid be found in strata chronologically between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana and the earliest known human species, which from 1891 to 1961, was Homo erectus. Weâve found lots of candidates, as many as fifty species of apes which are now all extinct. But more than that, the theory also demanded that we find one âhalf-wayâ between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape whoâs hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet theyâre still pretending we never found it.

But worse than that, we didnât just find that one. In 1977, three years after we discovered the no-longer-missing link in the human evolutionary lineage, Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould mentioned an âextreme rarityâ of other clear transitions persistent in the fossil record âtil that time, and his comment, -taken out of context- remains a favorite of creationist quote-miners to this day. But in the more than 30 years since then, there has been a paleontological boon such that we now have way more transitional species in many more lineages than we ever needed or hoped for.
" -AronRa (The 9th foundational falsehood of Creationism)
Showing 166-180 of 367